I agree with the editorial board of The Capital that the proposal by Comptroller Peter Franchot for a State mandate requiring that school districts delay the start of the school year until after Labor Day is misguided.  [“School year’s start isn’t an economic issue,” 1/17/15.]  I disagree that the problem with his frivolous proposal is that it would usurp “local control” of primary and secondary education.

Instead, the problem lies in the fact that the governance model used in Maryland and most other states for primary and secondary education is obsolete, incapable of establishing useful long-term goals and objectives, and even less capable of implementing them.  Against the backdrop of a crisis in educational performance in this country the best that we can come up with is a plan to make sure that Maryland students can go “down’e ocean” on Labor Day?  If we had an effective system of governance for public education the debate over the school calendar would be driven by evidence on the calendar that best promotes learning rather than by what best serves the interests of boardwalk vendors.

Maryland may be among the best of the worst, but the United States now consistently ranks in the lower third of developed nations in the mathematical skills of its secondary students, generally considered the most important measure of an educational system.  As described in the most recent OCED (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) survey, American students “have particular weaknesses in performing mathematics tasks with higher cognitive demands, such as taking real-world situations, translating them into mathematical terms, and interpreting mathematical aspects in real-world problems.”  Stated another way, we are going to be increasingly dependent upon the immigration of scientists and engineers from Asia and Europe unless something changes.

The governance model consisting of 24 independent school districts run by local boards of education under the loose supervision of the State Board of Education may have been adequate in the 19^th century but it is not adequate today.  The “American exceptionalism” described by de Tocqueville in the 1830’s had to do with the pragmatism of its citizens and their willingness to try new approaches to old problems.  Today’s hidebound educational bureaucracy is anything but exceptional, dominated by teacher and administrator unions and run by school boards with minimal educational expertise.  School districts lurch from one educational fad to the next implemented by peripatetic superintendents rather than focus on establishing and achieving meaningful goals and objectives.  They are incapable of making the changes necessary to improve educational performance.

The 2013 report of the National Foundation for Educational Policy disclosed that 70% of graduate students in electrical engineering in American universities were foreign-born; 63% of graduate students in computer science were foreign-born.  Universities simply cannot find enough qualified students from the United States for those disciplines.  The numbers are astounding.  Fortunately for Maryland, however, our State leaders are working to ensure that students and their parents can go to Ocean City or Deep Creek Lake on Labor Day.

January 17, 2015

A problem with a belief system such as Penn State Exceptionalism is that myth can become more important than reality. A status that was the result over time of the consistent application of certain core principles of human conduct becomes an article of faith, accepted at face value without further analysis or effort. Eventually, it becomes not only an article of faith but also a matter of pride, and that is when trouble is likely.

The belief by the students and alumni of Penn State University that their school is exceptional because of an institutional commitment to higher social values than some other schools may have a sound basis in history. If so, it is important to understand what it took to achieve that exceptionalism. On the other hand, nothing is gained by treating exceptionalism as if it is a status that, once earned, simply may be enjoyed and exploited.

Nor is it reasonable to act as if exceptionalism can be lost forever through the behavior of a few individuals. In judging whether exceptionalism exists it is the present, not the past nor any reputation earned in the past, which counts.

The parallel is to the theory of American Exceptionalism. To listen to contemporary discussion, one might conclude that it is purely of mystical or perhaps divine origin. To the contrary, and putting aside the question of whether or not divinely-inspired, American Exceptionalism was the product of some very specific characteristics of American society.

Those characteristics encouraged adaptation to change, and included an attitude that problems could be overcome by the application of personal initiative and hard work. As described by de Tocqueville, Americans perceived themselves limited neither by class origin nor by other artifacts from a past left behind in Europe.

Our success as a nation has been the result of an application of these principles to the challenges that we faced, not the consequence of some mystical ideal. The tendency of some politicians to equate American Exceptionalism with moral supremacy grounded in religion is harmful because it encourages the idea that we are exceptional just because we are. That attitude is unlikely to restore American Exceptionalism and to result in the actions necessary to reverse America’s educational, industrial, and general economic decline. At its worst, that attitude is mere hubris.

Polls indicate that most Americans now believe that we have lost our way. It will not be easy, but American Exceptionalism can be restored by a recommitment to its constituent principles.

Restoration of Penn State Exceptionalism is not as complicated. It is obvious that for certain leaders of the institution the appearance of and reputation for morality became much more important than morality itself. Nothing new there in the human experience. Get rid of those leaders, grieve, and get over it. Any prior thought that Penn State somehow was immune from the recent events was hubris indeed; stated another way, simply foolish.

Students and alumni of Penn State should not repeat the mistakes of their failed leaders by preoccupation with appearances. They need to put aside concerns about (and become less infatuated with) the school’s reputation. It is just another artifact from the past that fails to inform future action. Instead, they need to demonstrate their commitment to higher social values by how this crisis is overcome and by how they act now and in the future. That is what counts, and that is how their exceptionalism can be restored.

To have any social value whatsoever, Penn State Exceptionalism, if it exists, can be neither a myth nor a reputation. It has to be a lifestyle practiced on a daily basis.

November 11, 2011

A comment attributed to an opponent of the proposed Foreign Affairs Security Training Center in Ruthsburg just about says it all.  After professing his support of the national security mission of the facility, the recent resident of Queen Anne’s County added:  “I just don’t want it in my backyard.”

That the Training Center has encountered strong resistance on the politically conservative Eastern Shore of Maryland comes as no surprise.  Even though so-called conservatives are more likely than their liberal counterparts to endorse the need to improve the security training of diplomats and their security officers, they are no more likely to want to inconvenience themselves in any way to make that possible.  The proposition that national security and defense is in any way a common duty and shared responsibility is fading from the American consciousness.

America now fights its wars with little sense of sacrifice among the general populace.   Taxes are not increased; war bonds are not sold.  The fighting and dying is done by volunteers drawn primarily from the lower economic strata of our society, men and women who, when they leave military service, will struggle to find jobs and are unlikely to be able to enjoy the bucolic life in Ruthsburg to which the opponents of the Training Center aspire.

The idea that the benefits of a free and secure society can be enjoyed without sharing its burdens is corroding what little is left of our civic mindedness.  We do not bother to understand and have lost interest in decisions by elected leaders that may have cataclysmic effects elsewhere in the world, but which have consequences to only a handful of American citizens willing to risk their own personal safety, and their families.  Support for our troops is loud and profuse, but often is little more than lip service.

Tourists from Queen Anne’s County will travel around the world, demanding service from and, on occasion, protection by American embassy and consular employees.   International terrorism has made duty in embassies and consulates more dangerous than ever.  We expect the employees that staff the embassies and consulates to be well-trained, as long as their training does not inconvenience us in the least.  We want to be protected and defended, so long as we are not bothered by the effort.

January 24, 2010

 

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter’s 30th year in the Senate may be his last. His support of President Obama’s economic stimulus package has placed him in jeopardy in the 2010 Republican primary in which he trails a much more conservative candidate in early polls. Ironically, his vote against the offensive, pro-union “card check” bill infuriated powerful labor interests, and thus weakened his argument that only he can hold back a strong Democratic challenge to his seat next year.

Specter’s centrist views and willingness to vote his conscience have given him unusual influence and power as a “swing” vote. They also have made him a target for extraordinary criticism from the right wing that dominates the Republican Party.

If his senatorial career comes to an end next year, Specter will leave behind a record that comes a lot closer to being a noble one than the records of most senators who have served as long. Specter, on occasion, has taken positions that demonstrate courage and honor. The few bright moments in the careers of most senators occur purely by chance, when their studied pursuit of self-interest and partisan ideologies coincide to produce something resembling sound public policy. Partisan votes are the norm; principled votes are rare.

Many politicians complain about political partisanship; few do anything other than perpetuate it. Hand wringing over the extent to which raw partisanship has crippled Washington’s capacity to solve problems has never been greater, and both candidates in last year’s presidential election vowed to rise above it. Instead, President Obama frequently has wilted under pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, neither of whom has a non-partisan bone in his or her body.

For their part, Republicans respond to almost every step that President Obama takes on domestic policy with the mantra that he is turning the United States into a socialist country. David Gergen laments that every issue seems to send both sides to the barricades. The only things as scarce as cooperation are thoughtfulness and reflection.

The moral to a Specter defeat in the Republican primary will be that, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, non-partisanship remains an unproductive strategy in a primary election. His loss would be a signal that Congress is becoming more partisan, not less.

April 22, 2009

Last week, William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, decried the appointment of Harry Knox to the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships by President Obama. Donahue reportedly told FOXNews.com: “People are right to criticize the Catholic Church for anything. But Harry Knox is not just a critic. He’s insulting. He used disdainful, disparaging terms to talk about the pope and the Catholic hierarchy.” Knox, a prominent Christian gay activist, frequently has criticized Catholic opposition to gay marriage, and most recently was harshly critical of Pope Benedict’s statement during a papal visit to Africa that the distribution of condoms makes the HIV/AIDS crisis on that continent worse.

Last month, Donohue joined the chorus of Catholics denouncing the invitation extended to President Obama to give the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, where he will receive an honorary doctorate. Donohue, in reference to the President, explained to IrishCentral: “There’s never been an abortion that he didn’t like.”

Donahue’s hyperbolic insult of the President was similar in tone to statements made by Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton. During the course of condemning the invitation extended to President Obama, Martino labeled the President “an unequalled, prominent proponent of the culture of death in our nation.”

Donahue apparently sees no contradiction between the criticism that he heaps on Harry Knox and his own willingness to describe the President as having a fondness for abortions. In the pre-Vatican II mindset of Catholics like Donahue and Bishop Martino, attacks on the moral and religious beliefs of the most prominent Protestant in the country are fair game, while “disparaging” remarks about the Pope are off limits.

By all accounts, President Obama is a devout Christian who believes that, regardless of his own moral and religious views on abortion, women have the right in this country to make certain choices based on their own moral and religious views. As a former constitutional law professor, President Obama has a well-developed appreciation of the Bill of Rights, including the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment. As the head of a government that has, as a core principle, tolerance for differences on matters of religion, President Obama must reconcile his personal religious views with what he perceives to be his constitutional duties. Donahue and Bishop Martino reject the legitimacy of such a reconciliation, and choose instead to impugn the President’s motives.

Before the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church did not formally approve of the concept of the separation of church and state. Moreover, complete religious freedom belonged only to the Catholic Church as an institution, because it alone contained the fullness of divine truth. The Declaration on Religious Freedom (“Dignitatis Humanae”), one of the final documents of the Second Vatican Council, rejected coercion of religious belief in any form, asserting: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.” The Declaration on Religious Freedom was controversial within the Catholic Church, and Donahue and Bishop Martino obviously remain unconvinced of its merits.

Rejection of the Declaration on Religious Freedom leads to a double standard in Catholic rhetoric. While a great many Catholics and the large majority of everyone else disagree with the Pope’s position on condoms and HIV/AIDS, few doubt the sincerity of his beliefs. Imagine the uproar from the Catholic League if a bishop from a mainline Protestant denomination said that the Pope never met an HIV/AIDS epidemic that he didn’t like, or called the Pope a prominent proponent of the culture of death in Africa? Yet the president of the Catholic League and certain bishops of the Catholic Church feel no need to restrain themselves when talking about the Protestant President of the United States. The Pope may be wrong about condoms, and the President may be wrong about abortion, but neither deserves to have his piety assailed.

The harsh language aimed at President Obama by Catholic officials in the aftermath of his invitation to Notre Dame and his appointment of Harry Knox will find sympathetic ears among many Evangelical Protestants who share disdain for the President’s “liberal” brand of Christianity. However, the reaction will be different for more moderate members of mainline Protestant denominations and for the members of other faiths who understand that the Declaration on Religious Freedom was a watershed in the relationship between Catholicism and other religions. Casting aside the tenets of the Declaration on Religious Freedom will return us to a far less tolerant era when suspicions between Catholics and members of other faiths ran deep.

April 14, 2009

The decision by the French parliament to ban head scarves in schools is likely to accomplish precisely the opposite of its goal:  The ban itself will become a symbol of political and religious repression, and serve as a rallying point for opposition to that repression.  It will give Muslim extremists a tangible example of the alleged intolerance of Islamic beliefs by French society.  It will be an issue that they can use to provoke anger, and attract others to their cause.

No one understands the power of symbolism any better than the French.  Americans understand it, as well.  In the 1960’s, burning of the American flag became a means to express opposition to the war in Vietnam.  Conservatives and other groups reacted by suppressing what they saw as the desecration of the ultimate symbol of American virtue and values.  To opponents of the war, criminal prosecution of flag burners was not seen as protection of an important symbol of America, but as suppression of their rights of political expression.  Anger was the primary outcome on both sides.

The role of religious fundamentalism in a secular society is a growing challenge not only for France, but also for the United States and other nations.  In the United States, the political effect of religious fundamentalism on the issue of abortion now is powerful enough to influence the outcome of presidential elections.  If it ever becomes powerful enough to change the law that allows abortions, the social upheaval in the United States will make the current situation in France look like a picnic by the Seine.

Politicians (on both sides of the Atlantic) tend to confront symbols rather than the underlying problems, if only because dealing with the underlying problems is a much more complex undertaking.  However, when they yield to the temptation to focus on a symbol rather than an issue, they promote civil unrest rather than discourse.  The debate shifts from the underlying issue to the suppression of ideas and beliefs, which is as likely to cause anger in the country of Voltaire as in the country of Jefferson.

When addressing issues such as religious fundamentalism, politicians would be well-advised to do as did Voltaire and Jefferson, and consult the teachings of John Locke.  Locke, in his Letters Concerning Toleration, counselled that the repression of religious expression is likely to cause rather than suppress civil disorder.

August 24, 2008

In his statement to the House Armed Services Committee, excerpts from which appeared in The Sun on April 1st, Anthony Cordesman warned of the dangers of abandoning Iraq too quickly.  His message, like that of Senator John McCain, is that Congress should not react to past mistakes by the current administration by demanding a withdrawal before Iraqi forces are capable of restoring peace and stability.

Cordesman worries that the administration’s exaggerated claims regarding the capabilities of the Iraqi Army and police (a “tissue of lies, spin, distortion and omission”) will encourage a premature exit.  He is haunted by the devastating consequences for the brave officers of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) that followed our departure from that war before the ARVN could stand on its own.

However, Cordesman did not mention the overarching lesson learned in Korea, and relearned in Vietnam:  The American people will not tolerate a prolonged, costly involvement in the civil war of another country.  Realizing that, administration leaders, most notably Vice-President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, consistently misrepresented the time and effort that it would take to bring order to Iraq after the invasion.  Almost four years after Rumsfeld dismissed the insurgency as “pockets of dead-enders,” the violence rages almost unabated.

As described by Cordesman, the human costs of our early withdrawal from Iraq likely will be tragic.  No one can be sure whether the strategic consequences of the withdrawal will be grave as predicted by Senator McCain, or as benign as they were in Vietnam.  However, it is absolutely certain that the American people will not be disabused of their desire to end our involvement in Iraq as rapidly as possible.

April 1, 2007

The resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld does not finish the job.  His departure must be followed by that of Marine Corps General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In a story on April 14, 2006, The Sun reported that General Pace was one of the staunchest defenders of Secretary Rumsfeld, as the clamor rose for Rumsfeld’s resignation.  The support given to Rumsfeld by Pace should come as no surprise.

In an interview on Meet the Press on April 2, 2006, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni stated that the resignations at the Pentagon should not end with Rumsfeld, and that accountability must extend to the high-ranking officers who stood by while Rumsfeld ignored military planners.  While Zinni and the other generals who went public last spring with their dissatisfaction over the execution of the war in Iraq were reluctant to name names among their brethren, there is no doubt that they were talking about Pace.

As disclosed in Cobra II, a remarkable book on the planning that preceded the war, Pace was among those officers, which included former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, who chose not to take the risk of disagreeing with Rumsfeld. According to retired Marine Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Pace, who was then the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stood by silently in late 2001 when Rumsfeld angrily admonished military leaders that contingency plans for an invasion of Iraq included far too many troops.  Rumsfeld never retreated from his ill-considered position, and good men like Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki paid the price for their disagreement.

As disclosed this week by the Associated Press, the Pentagon’s own war games in 1999 foresaw the need for 400,000 troops for an invasion of Iraq, about twice the number approved by Rumsfeld.  Even at the higher troop levels, the war games revealed that long term stability in Iraq would be difficult to achieve.

While the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff formally is nominated by the President for confirmation by the Senate, it is Secretary Rumsfeld who has the held the actual power of appointment under President Bush.  General Pace was rewarded for his loyalty by being elevated to Chairman in 2005.

Since the Vietnam War, military historians have lamented the fact that some senior officers, willing to risk their very lives in battle at the inception of their careers, are unwilling to risk losing a promotion or a choice assignment as their careers draw to a close.  Bad advice can be the best career choice.  However, General Pace now needs to accept responsibility for his advice, and resign.

November 9, 2006

One casualty of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that largely has been overlooked is the system of delivering health care to active duty and retired members of our military.  That system consists of military facilities intended primarily to serve the active duty forces; Tricare, a health insurance program that serves active duty dependents, retirees, and certain members of the Guard and Reserve; and the facilities of the Veterans Administration.

A proposal by the Bush administration to cut Tricare reimbursements for physician services by 5.1% will take effect in 2007.  The Republican-controlled Congress shows no inclination to halt the cuts, which inevitably will result in reduced access to and a decline in the quality of health care.  Every major organization representing active and retired members of the military has urged the Bush administration to derail the proposal, without success.  In the meantime, fees charged for dependents and retirees to participate in Tricare have dramatically increased.

Military installation and organizational commanders in the United States have been warned to expect sharply-decreased funding for the construction and repair of facilities of all types, including medical facilities, as belts are tightened to help pay for the costs of the wars.  Chronic under-funding of the Veterans Administration already has reached crisis proportions.

At the same time that they demand sacrifices by the military and their families, the Republic administration and Congress seek a repeal of the federal estate tax and reduction of other taxes that will benefit only the wealthiest among us.  The disparity is obscene.  It is as if members of the military and their families are being asked to pay for their “own” wars, so that the rich can be made even richer.

Republicans long have used flag-waving rhetoric to appeal to military voters, while supporting measures that erode military benefits.  That cynical exploitation of the people that we send to fight our wars could have a steep cost, not only to Republican candidates, but more importantly to our ability to recruit and retain an effective military force.

October 8, 2006

President Bush has backed himself into a rhetorical corner that will make it difficult for him to extricate the United States from the war in Iraq.  First of all, he has made the mistake of allowing our stake in the war in Iraq to be defined by our enemies.  In his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy on September 6th, the President quoted Osama bin Laden as describing the outcome in Iraq as “either victory or glory, or misery and humiliation” for al-Qaida.  It is clear that the President sees the outcome in the same terms for the United States, and for himself.

The President also has turned over to al-Qaida the choice of the main battleground in what the President characterizes as an epic struggle between good and evil.  By declaring that Iraq is the “central front” in a global war against Islamist terrorism, the President has made another fateful decision, because success on that front depends on his ability to foster a stable government in Iraq that will remain an ally in the war against terrorism.

In the 85-year history of modern Iraq, a “nation” cobbled together from disparate religious and ethnic factions by the British after World War I, all governments of Iraq, without exception, have been overthrown by revolution or other violent means.  Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a former Director of the National Security Agency appointed by President Ronald Reagan, recently was quoted as saying that “There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay.”  General Odom is by no means alone in that prediction.

During his campaign in 2000, then-candidate George Bush repeatedly ridiculed the use of the United States military for “nation building.”  Our early missteps and inadequate commitment to nation building in Iraq reflected the ambivalence of the President and his advisers toward the process.  Nevertheless, he now has pegged his success in the war against terrorism on his ability to rebuild Iraq into something resembling a pro-American democracy, an effort unlikely to succeed.

The misery and humiliation that President Bush may feel if it appears that the United States is driven from Iraq by the insurgency is better than the legacy of unnecessarily sending more brave men and women there to die.  The moral success or failure of his leadership in this war likely will be judged, not on his decision to invade Iraq, but on his decision when to leave.  The moral failure of our leadership during the war in Vietnam did not lie in the initial decision to try to defend South Vietnam from aggression by North Vietnam.  It occurred when the war was allowed to continue long after they had decided that we could not or would not do what was necessary to win the war.

President Nixon extricated us from the war in Vietnam by declaring that we had done all we could be expected to do, and ordering our troops home.  President Bush should take comfort from the fact the loss of the war in Vietnam did not lead, as feared, to the ascendancy of world communism, nor did it mean the end of the United States as a global superpower.

There is as little evidence that the war in Iraq is critically important to the global war on Islamist extremism as there was evidence supporting the “domino” theory that drew us so deeply into the war between North and South Vietnam.  Unfortunately, by declaring Iraq to be the central front in the war against terrorism, President Bush has needlessly backed himself into a corner.  It will now be much more difficult for him to extricate us from the war in Iraq.

October 7, 2005